The Blogs: US Senate Presses UBS for More Details on Nazi-Linked Credit Suisse Accounts

UBS is facing renewed pressure from the United States Senate over Credit Suisse’s historical handling of accounts linked to Nazi Germany (Bloomberg), after the Senate Judiciary Committee demanded answers to dozens of additional questions and accused the Swiss lender of failing to fully address its earlier requests. Helen Junz, former member of the Volcker and Bergier commissions, in a five-page letter dated August 6, 2026 also criticized UBS’s interpretation of the 1998 settlement.

The latest development was reported on Thursday, September 3, when a previously undisclosed letter from Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was made public.

Dated July 17, 2026, the letter contains 62 questions for UBS. Grassley told the bank that its previous responses had not fully addressed the committee’s questions. UBS declined to comment on the letter, according to the report, but a person familiar with the bank’s planning said it is preparing a response.

The renewed pressure comes as UBS seeks to bring to a close a years-long investigation into Credit Suisse’s historical relationships with Nazi-linked clients and organisations. The bank has argued that the inquiry should end by the end of 2026, while Grassley and independent ombudsman Neil Barofsky continue to push for additional records and a more comprehensive investigation.

Grassley is also planning another Senate hearing on the issue, although no date has yet been set. He wants the historical records gathered during the investigation to be preserved in a repository dedicated to Credit Suisse’s Nazi-linked accounts.

A new round of questions

The immediate issue is the Senate’s dissatisfaction with UBS’s previous answers.

Grassley’s July 17 letter shows that the committee does not believe the information already supplied by the bank has adequately addressed its concerns. The 62 questions give UBS another opportunity — and another deadline in the political process — to explain its position and provide further information.

The questions come after months of increasingly public disagreement between UBS and Barofsky, who is overseeing the investigation.

The Senate’s interest is focused on Credit Suisse’s historical handling of accounts connected to Nazi Germany, including the treatment of Jewish clients’ assets and the bank’s relationships with Nazi-affiliated institutions.

The investigation has already produced significant new findings.

At a Senate hearing in February 2026, lawmakers were told that investigators had identified 890 previously undisclosed accounts with potential Nazi links at Credit Suisse. According to Senator Grassley, the accounts included those belonging to the German Foreign Office, the SS, and a German arms manufacturer.

Those findings transformed the investigation from a largely historical review into a continuing dispute over what Credit Suisse knew, what was previously disclosed and whether additional records could reveal more.

The latest Senate questions are therefore being submitted against a backdrop of evidence that investigators say has expanded significantly beyond what was known during earlier inquiries.

UBS wants the investigation to end this year

UBS has not disputed that the investigation has uncovered substantial historical material. Instead, the bank has increasingly focused on the scope and duration of the process.

The current investigation is around six years old, and UBS has argued that it should be completed by the end of 2026.

The bank has also challenged Barofsky’s independence and methodology, arguing that the ombudsman’s approach lacks objectivity.

UBS says it has already invested enormous resources in the review. According to the bank, it has spent more than $100 million financing Barofsky’s investigative team and has provided investigators with more than 19 million documents.

The bank’s position is that it is prepared to cooperate with legitimate inquiries but cannot allow the investigation to continue indefinitely.

The Senate’s position is different.

Grassley has continued to argue that the investigation must be complete and transparent and that UBS should provide the records requested by Barofsky.

That disagreement is now at the centre of the latest confrontation.

Barofsky’s allegations

Barofsky has argued that the investigation has uncovered evidence that warrants further examination.

In May 2026, he wrote to the Senate committee accusing UBS of making what he called “false and misleading statements” concerning previously unreported examples of Credit Suisse allegedly executing forced transfers of Jewish clients’ assets into accounts belonging to Nazi-affiliated banks.

He also accused UBS of withholding records from the investigation.

UBS rejected Barofsky’s account, saying that his narrative lacked objectivity.

The disagreement has continued as the investigation approaches the end date sought by UBS.

For the Senate, the dispute over access to records is particularly important. If investigators have identified previously undisclosed Nazi-linked accounts, lawmakers want to know whether the bank’s archives contain additional information that could alter or expand the findings.

The question is not simply how many documents UBS has produced, but whether investigators have been able to examine the documents they consider relevant.

The 890 accounts

The discovery of 890 accounts with potential Nazi links remains one of the most important findings disclosed during the investigation this year.

The accounts were identified as part of a review commissioned after Credit Suisse’s historical handling of Nazi-linked accounts came under renewed scrutiny.

Reuters reported in February that the accounts included 628 accounts belonging to individuals and 262 belonging to legal entities, according to information presented around the Senate investigation. The account holders included organisations associated with the Nazi regime.

Barofsky also told the February hearing that Credit Suisse’s banking relationships with the SS were more extensive than previously known.

The investigation uncovered evidence concerning the SS’s economic arm and also identified links to networks used to help Nazi fugitives escape Europe after the Second World War, including routes to Argentina.

Those findings have given the Senate additional reason to resist efforts to narrow the investigation.

They also explain why Grassley is continuing to demand access to the bank’s historical records.

A dispute over the 1999 settlement

Another major issue behind the current confrontation is the status of the settlement reached between Swiss banks and Jewish groups in the 1990s.

UBS argues that the settlement, under which $1.25 billion was paid to Holocaust victims and their families, resolved claims relating to Nazi-era accounts.

The bank has therefore maintained that the current investigation is intended principally to establish the historical record rather than reopen financial liability.

Opponents of that interpretation argue that newly uncovered information may concern matters that were not known or fully investigated when the settlement was reached.

That disagreement became more significant after the discovery of the 890 accounts and evidence concerning Nazi-linked banking relationships that investigators say were previously unknown.

The legal implications remain contested.

In March 2026, UBS asked a US federal judge to clarify that the earlier settlement protected it from additional Holocaust-related claims. The request followed the discovery of additional Credit Suisse records and potential Nazi-linked accounts.

A US judge subsequently rejected UBS’s attempt to limit its potential liability, according to reporting cited by Swissinfo.

That ruling did not end the historical investigation, and the Senate inquiry has continued.

New support for the Senate investigation

The Senate committee and Barofsky also received support last month from Helen Junz, an economist and former member of the Volcker and Bergier commissions, which played key roles in earlier investigations of Swiss banks’ Nazi-era activities.

In a five-page letter dated August 6, 2026, Junz criticised UBS’s interpretation of the 1998 settlement.

She argued that the bank was taking an overly broad view of the settlement by suggesting that actively concealed Nazi-linked assets would automatically fall within its protections.

Junz’s intervention added another prominent voice to the criticism of UBS’s position.

She also accused Credit Suisse of having a longstanding pattern of resisting investigations into its historical conduct and argued that UBS had continued that pattern following its acquisition of Credit Suisse.

UBS has rejected the broader criticism of its conduct and has continued to defend its cooperation with the investigation.

Why the latest letter matters

The significance of Grassley’s July 17 letter is partly its timing.

The letter was sent more than six weeks before it became public, but its disclosure on September 3 brings the Senate’s demands back into focus just as UBS is seeking to conclude the investigation.

The 62 questions indicate that the committee is not prepared simply to accept the bank’s previous responses.

They also suggest that the Senate expects UBS to address unresolved issues before the investigation reaches its planned conclusion.

Grassley has said he wants another hearing, although there is currently no announced date. He is also seeking to establish a historical repository for the records relating to Credit Suisse’s Nazi-linked accounts.

That proposal would give the investigation a legacy beyond the immediate dispute between UBS and the Senate.

Rather than simply closing the inquiry with a final report, lawmakers want the underlying records preserved for future historical research.

What happens next

The immediate next step is UBS’s response to Grassley’s 62 questions.

The bank has not publicly disclosed how it will answer them. The Senate has also not announced when the next hearing will take place.

Meanwhile, Barofsky is continuing his investigation and is expected to complete his report by the end of the year, despite the disagreement over its scope and the access available to his team. UBS has rejected his request for more time and wants the investigation concluded within that timetable.

The dispute therefore enters September with both sides maintaining fundamentally different positions.

UBS says it has provided millions of documents, spent more than $100 million on the investigation and has cooperated extensively. It wants the process brought to an end.

Grassley and Barofsky argue that the investigation has produced new evidence and that unanswered questions remain. They want further records and a more complete historical account.

The latest development does not resolve that disagreement. Instead, it puts the focus squarely back on UBS and its next response.

If the bank’s answers satisfy the Senate, the dispute could begin moving toward a conclusion. If they do not, Grassley’s planned hearing and continued demands for records could produce another round of confrontation.

For now, the central question remains whether the investigation has uncovered the full extent of Credit Suisse’s Nazi-linked relationships — or whether the bank’s archives still contain information that has yet to come to light.